Discussion Title: The world needs an international environmental government that has political power to mitigate environmental damage

1. The world needs an international environmental government that has political power to mitigate environmental damage.
1.1. Pro: An international environmental government could solve the [prisoner's dilemma](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp) countries are facing when it comes to the environment
1.1.1. Pro: Countries wouldn't take decisions based on their personal interest, instead an internal environmental government would take decisions based on the world's interest.
1.1.2. Con: It wouldn't solve the inequalities when it comes to resources of the different countries around the world.
1.2. Pro: The only way to ensure that change will be made for our ecosystems is through an international power.
1.2.1. Pro: An international power could efficiently create policies to protect our ecosystems, fish populations, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste disposal at a global level.
1.2.2. Con: It could be argued that if that 'environmental government' is political in nature, its [trustworthiness](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247202330_Political_Trust_and_Trustworthiness) is not ensured.
1.2.3. Pro: An international environmental government could set a common protocol around the world to protect our ecosystems.
1.3. Con: An international environmental government could increase conflicts between countries.
1.3.1. Pro: If conflicts increase between countries, they wouldn't reach any agreement on how to mitigate environmental change.
1.3.1.1. Con: It would be redistributed fairly according each country's environmental contribution, which is how it theoretically always should have been
1.3.1.2. Con: It would likely not be a big cost on the budgets
1.3.2. Con: An international environmental government would decrease conflicts between countries, as all countries would be united towards a same goal.
1.4. Con: Giving so much power to one organisation could be a great risk.
1.4.1. Pro: If all the power is centralized, the chances of corruption could be greater.
1.4.1.1. Con: The calculations of taxes \(that would have redistributive effects\) and regulations placed on countries could be transparently made available thanks to Internet.
1.4.1.2. Pro: Corruption is a problem [international organizations working in cooperation](https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/63/4/1108/5551548?redirectedFrom=fulltext) already face.
1.4.2. Pro: In light of events like [Brexit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit), it is clear that many countries are hesitant to enter into any kind of supranational, let alone global, organization.
1.4.3. Con: There are already some international organizations that have been successful in reducing the risk of war and corruption.
1.4.3.1. Pro: [The UN](https://www.un.org/un70/en/content/70ways/index.html) has successfully managed to consolidate peace around the world.
1.5. Pro: An international government could rely on economics to solve environmental problems.
1.5.1. Pro: A common solution such as [pigovian taxes](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pigoviantax.asp) could become the single most efficient way of mitigating many environmental problems.
1.5.1.1. Con: We don't have the tools to make the calculations accurately enough for a correct taxation of the environmental damage
1.5.1.1.1. Con: Countries are able to make their own calculations or run the same numbers and claim a correction
1.5.1.1.1.1. Con: This calculation would be disproportionately available for rich countries to do.
1.5.1.2. Con: If pigovian taxes are applied to everyone in the same way, they could become unfair.
1.5.1.2.1. Con: Pigovian taxes wouldn't have to be applied to everyone in the same way, an international environmental government could calculate the best way to proceed with these taxes.
1.5.1.2.2. Pro: Pigovian taxes could apply more costs to the poor.
1.5.1.2.2.1. Con: [The price of food is also a higher proportion of poor people's income than rich people's income](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/40816/32372_aer759.pdf?v=6216.5), but that doesn't mean we should reduce the price of food. Pigovian taxes solve a wrong price, and can thus not be compared with VAT's. \(p.1\)
1.5.1.2.2.2. Pro: We haven't found a [way to fight injustice and inequality](https://www.cesr.org/es/node/49360), therefore, it'd be unlikely that an international environmental government could find a fair international taxation.
1.5.1.2.2.2.1. Con: Inequality should be solved through other means than by avoiding the solving of market failures.
1.5.1.2.2.3. Con: That is not necessarily true because an international government would represent the interests of all nations and the distribution of how much each country would need to give wouldn't be equal \(since some countries produce more environmental damage than others\).
1.5.1.2.2.3.1. Pro: [Wealthier countries produce more damage](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change), that why poorer countries wouldn't need to contribute as much as wealthy countries to save the planet.
1.5.1.2.3. Pro: [Pigovian taxes are regressive](https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-examples-4157479), therefore, they can impose a harsher burden on the populations with lower incomes.
1.5.1.2.3.1. Con: Income inequality should be assessed separately from market failure solutions. Not applying a pigouvian tax is like subsidising certain products. In both cases it is a distortive way of reducing income inequality.
1.5.1.3. Pro: Pigovian taxes could align private incentives "[with social costs and move us toward better outcomes](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html)" regarding climate change.
1.5.2. Pro: Countries would theoretically be taxed fairly for the damage they are causing.
1.5.2.1. Con: Taxing fossil fuels, which are also the cheapest fuels, would initially disadvantage developing economies that do not have access to sustainable energy.
1.5.2.2. Con: Without effective enforcement capabilities, countries that are unwilling to pay these taxes could simply opt out.
1.5.2.2.1. Pro: The U.S. under the presidency of Donald Trump opted out of the [Paris Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement).
1.5.2.3. Pro: [Economists have argued that putting a “price” on carbon](https://www.lse.ac.uk/Research/research-impact-case-studies/an-economic-solution-to-climate-change-that-could-save-trillions), in order to force polluters to take into account the negative effects of their harmful emissions, could efficiently curb these emissions.
1.5.2.4. Pro: It would spark huge investments in technology for the environment.
1.5.2.4.1. Pro: Businesses could be incentivized to invest in [biotechnology](https://www.bio.org/what-biotechnology) or [green technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_technology) in order to create more eco-friendly industrial processes.
1.5.2.4.2. Con: Unless a global fund against climate change is created, technology investments would probably stay in richer countries.
1.5.2.4.2.1. Con: This would be no different from any other world efforts in climate change mitigation.
1.5.3. Con: We should rely on environmental experts, not economics.
1.5.3.1. Con: There exists an entire field of [environmental economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics).
1.5.3.2. Pro: [Environmental experts](https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/section/horizon-2020-environment-and-resources/call-experts-climate-action-environment-resources) are qualified to address the necessary steps needed in order to reverse climate change.
1.6. Con: While global environmental protection is in the 21st century one of the [major challenges in international relations](https://ips-dc.org/global_environmental_protection_in_the_21st_century/), attempts of creating international environmental policies have failed so far.
1.6.1. Pro: After the Rio summit in 1992, the assembled governments established "[the Commission on Sustainable Development \(CSD\)](https://ips-dc.org/global_environmental_protection_in_the_21st_century/)" to integrate environment and development into the UN system, but not many policies have been established.
1.6.2. Con: The UN has established the [2030 agenda for sustainable goals](https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030.html) to unite countries in the fight for global environment protection.